ML20043H213
| ML20043H213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1990 |
| From: | Sinclair J INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043H207 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-4, NUDOCS 9006220223 | |
| Download: ML20043H213 (24) | |
Text
.4.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR )
(Construction Period POWER CORPORATION
)
Recapture)
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES B. SINCLAIR James B. Sinclair, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1.
I am the Director of External Affairs of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. Among my other responsibilities is the function of serving as VYNPC's interface with the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
("IN PO"). I am familiar with the documents that are the subject of the
" Objection to Document Production and Request for Protective Order (INPO i
Documents)"in support of which this affidavit is made, and I am familiar with the INPO programs as a result of which these documents were produced.
I am also familiar with the " Memorandum of Agreet. i qt Between the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" dated October 20,1988.
2.
INPO is a private non-profit consortium of electric utility companies operating nuclear power plants in the United States, it produces, and cir-culates to its membership, reports that present the results of its own inquiries into events and experiences of potential safety significance occurring at its members' power plants, either on a plant-specific basis or on an industry-wide (topical) basis. INPO also furnishes copies of its reports to the NRC.
Reports are furnished to NRC and to the INPO members on the express condition that they not be made public without INPO's consent. Vermont.
Yankee has been informed that INPO does not consent to the production to the State of Vermont of any of the documents covered by this document request (except No.11). Indeed, I am informed that the State of Vermont i
9 9006220223 900615 PDR ADOCK 0b000271 0
PDR.
earlier requested the same documents from INPO directly and was told that they were not available to it.
- 3..Sach of the documents in question is the property of INPO and is copyrighted by INPO. In addition,each of the documents (with the exception of No. II/ is stamped by INPO as either " Limited Distribtttion" or " Restricted Distribution." " Limited Distribution" means:
" LIMITED DISTRIBUT!oN: Copyright 1988 by Institute of Nuclear i
Power Operations. All rights reserved. Not for sale. Unauthorized reproduction is a violation of applicable law. Reproduction of not more than ten copies by each recipient for its internal use or use by its contract-)ts in the normal course of business is permitted. This document saould not be otherwise transferred or delivered to any third party, end its contents should not be made public, without the prior agreemtnt of INPO."
" Restricted Distrib.ition" means:
" RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION: Copyright 1988 by Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. All rights reserved.
Not for sale.
Reproduction of tais report without prior written consent of INPO is expressly prohibited. Unauthorized reproduction is a violation of applicable law. Tt.e persons and organizations that are furnished copies of this report should not deliver or transfer this report to any third person, or make this report of its contents public, without the prior agreement of INPO and, if applicable, the member of INPO for whom the report was written."
To my knowledge, Vermont Yankee has never transgressed the restrictions imposed on it by INPO by thtse restrictions.
4.
As noted above, INPO nakes copies of its reports available to NRC in order to assist NRC in the ptrformance by NRC of its statutory respon-l sibilities. INPO and NRC have tntered into a " Memorandum of Agreement Between the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" dated Octaber 20,1988, a copy of which is attached to this affidavit. In relevant part, this agreement provides as follows:
"The appendices to this agreement provide for NRC access to selected INPO proprietty documents and information. Such documents and information. provided to the NRC will be appropriately identified as Limited or Restricted Distribution. Consistent with previous legal decisions sanctioning the exchange of propriett.ry information between INPO and NRC and in the interest of improving nuclear pbnt safety, NRC will control distribution of INPO proprietary documents and information within the agency and will exert best efforts to protect it from unauthorized disclosure. Exceptions to this,
7
l policy for control of INPO proprietary documents and information will be addressed by the parties to this agreement on a case-by-case basis."
5.
I am aware that, in addition to its undertakings in the Memorandum of Agreement, the NRC has considered whether INPO reports should be made publicly available, and concluded that they should not, in connection with litigation known as the Critical Mass, case. The position of the NRC on this issue is described by the Court in that litigation thus:
"NRC and INPO are nevertheless fulling in accord in one respect:
the limited confidentiality the INPO reports presently enjoy,i.e., their general unavailability to the public at large, is indispensable to the quality of the information they contain. A host of declarants and affiants from both NRC and INPO (all of whom are highly qualified nuclear professionals possessing both years of relevant experience and the responsibility of currently relevant office) ardently attest to-the importance of that circumstance r.s assuring x,aximum candor on the part of INPO's sources for the substance vt' its reports."
"NRC and INPO contend that the true value of the reports to the industry (and to NRC) lies not in the factual information they impart but, rather, in the insight they afford as to ' root causes' of the events and experiences which are frequency found to involve human error.
The INPO personnel who compile the reports endeavor to get members' officials and plant personnel having knowledge of such events and experience to engage in subjective self-critical or colleague-critical ' rumination' about them.
Were the reports to' become public, candor would suffer, and hence, diminish the value of the reporting process itself to INPO, to NRC, and ultimately to the public."
Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 731 F. Supp. 554, $$6 & n.6 (D.D.C.,
1990).
- 6. The document requated in Item i1 is classified by INPO as publicly available. It is not within the scope of this objection and request for a protective order.
- 7. The NRC and INPO policy on disclosure, and the underlying reasons that support it, apply equally to each of the documents covered by this document request (other than No.11).
- 8. There is an additional similar reason why these documents should not be produced. Each of these documents attempts to identify what is known as " good practices" for the operation of a nuclear power plant, based on the aggregate of members' experience and judgment. The functicn of these
" good practices" observations is to assist the members, and ultimately the 3
JUN-15-1990 1!:34 FROM Ut feke, corp TO W
t b 0* l0 r
-l v P
NRC in achieving what is known as s 'rlslag standard of exce!!enet,' which means continually improving operator performance above the minimum required for licensing and M enforcement. These ' good practices' observa.
tions are suceptible of two kinds of misuse. First, they may not be applicable to any given plant or circumstance. Second, they are something that some otJsht setempt to convert into licensing or enforcement minimum performance, thus defeating their purpose. INPC la convinced, as am I, that the public disclosure of these ' good practices
- observations will ultimately and neessaarily lead to the abandonment by INPO and its members of the effort to prodeos them.
. ns 3 r.
James B. Sinelair j
State of Vermont
)
County ahw< b%
Then erpeared James 8. Sinclair. before and perseerally known to me, who, being flest it.ly
- sworn, lared the foregoing statements 80 be true.
this day of June. I9 YO LA e
Notery Public f
f My Commission entres:.2 9 i q% ***%e b
nu ar I
/
4 l-e' u
h
- A
77________.________
. _ _ _ _ ~ _. _ _ _ _
s-l i.
)
MDERANOW 0F AGREDENT BETWEEN THE INSTITUTE OF NUCL. EAR POWER OptRATIONS AND THE U.S. NUCt. EAR RESULATORY Com!$110N
- This memorandum between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations-(!NPO) reflects the desire for a continuing and cooperative relationship in the exchange of experience, information, and data related to the safety of nuclear power plants.
The NRC has. statutory responsibility for licensing and regulating nuclear facilities and materials and for conducting research in support of the licensing and regulatory process, as mandated by the Atocic Energy Act of 1984, as amended, the Energy Reorganisation Act of 1974, as amended, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 19788 and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1999, as amended, ans other applicable statutes.
NRC's responsibilities include protecting public health and safety, protecting the environment, protect % and safeguarding materials and plants in the interest of national security, and assuring conformity with antitrust laws.
J INP0 is an organisation sponsored by the nuclear utility industry whose mission is to promote the highest levels of safety and reliability in the J
operation of nuclear electric generating plants. As such, NRC and^!NPO I
undertake mutual and complementary activities, as defined in appendices to this Agreement. These appendices will help enevre that the goals of both organzations are achieved in the most efficient and effective manner without diminishing or interfering with the responsibilitie,s and authorities of the l
NRC and the goals of INP0.
This Memorandum is not intended to be an enforceable a reement or contract on i
either party, notwithstanding the occasional use of th term " agree' or the use of mandatory language such as 'shall' or "will' in either the Memorandue In particular, insofar as this Memorandum or its.
or its appendices.
appendices indicate that the Comission will take or refrain from taking a particular action in discharge of its regulatory responsibilities, such an indication is intended only to reflect the Consission's current policy-intentions in this regard.
Since this Memorandum is not legally binding, the Comission may depart from its terms whenever it deems it necessary or appropriate to do to in the discharge of its regulatory responsibilities, except that in the interests of coomfation the Cassission will, if appropriate and practical, advise !(P0 of any intention to depart from the terms of this Memorandum prior to doing so.
It is intended that this Memorandum of Agreement and its companion appendices Appendices are utilized to delineate detailed and complement one another.
specific areas for cooperative agreements which exist between the parties of this Agreement and which may be amended from time to time.
The appendic 68 are not interpreted as restrictive to only those areas specified in tis document, but serve as keystones of the Agreement for the exchange of infomation to support'the cosmon goals of both organisations.
&$0 l
i6 m
7 Memorandum of Agreement lietween INP0/NRC Page Two (NP0 and the NRC agree to consult with each other with regard to the availability of technical information which would be useful in areas of mutual In Interest; and to promote and encourage a free flow of such information.
this reg &rd, INP0 will provide plant specific information on a case-by case sasis consistent with the other provisions of this Agreement. Both parties recognize the need for excluding from this Agreement fragmentary information related to work in progress and/or which has been received on a privileged However, as information is verified and found to be necessary or-basis.
impe= tant to findings upon which significant safety-related conclusions and recommendations are based, the party holding such information will take appropriate and timely steps to remove it from the fragmentary, privileged or otherwise restricted status. However, the NRC cannot provide information to INP0 that is required by law to be withheld. Each party recognises the need, on some occasions, to be able to accept and protect privileged infomation where such information could not be made available otherwise.
It is recognized that the parties to this Agreement may not be fully aware of the extent of each other's knowledge and thus, this Agreement requires only the parties' best efforts and a reasonable degree of care in assuring that sipificant safety-related information is provided in a timely manner to the oter party.
Y' The parties to the Agreement will meet periodically to exchange information and keep each other apprised of the major activities underway and planned in The meetings are an effort to avoid unnecessary and each area of agreement.
unintentional duplication of activities, while providing a means to identify those areas where independent activities by another organization may be warranted.
Coordination meetings are for information exchange only. Meetings-are not to be construed as requests or opportunities for (or.used by the NRC fee obtaining) the advice or recommendations of INp0 or its personnel on policy or regulatory issues within the scope of the NRC's responsibilities.
IWO advice or recommendations to the Commission on regulatory or policy matters, if any, are to be made through established procedures of the Commission and will be considered by the Commission in the same manner as other offers of advice or recommendations made through established Commission procedures. Minutes of all coordination meetings will be placed in the NRC public docutent room.
These need not be-verbatim transcripts of coordination meetings, but should include a list of the meeting participants and agenda items d'scussd at meetings, with brief summaries of the discussions held by meeting participants.
In ad11 tion to meetings, it is expected frecuent, informal communications will exist among the parties that will be limitec> to exchanging information and providing updates on the status of activities in progress or planned.
The appendices to this agreement provide for NRC access to selected INP0 Such documents and information proprietary documents and information.
provided to the NRC will be appropriately identified as Limited or Restricted Distribution. Consistent with previous legal decisions sanctioning the exchange of proprietary information between INP0 and NRC and in the interest of improving nuclear plant safety, NRC.will control distribution of-INP0
l l
4emorandum of Agreement Between INP0/NRC E
Page Three 1
propr.ietary documents and infomation Within the agency and'will exert best efforts to protect it from unauthorized disclosure. Exceptions '.o this policy-for control of IMP 0 proprietary docueents and infomation will be addressed by the parties to this agreement on a case-by-case basis.
f.
This Agreement supersedes the previous Agreement dated December 18 1985.
i
,_-D. Y i
netor 3elJl, Jr Tack T. Pate ExecutivFTirac r Operstions President U.S. Nuclear A atory Comission Institute of Nuclear Power Operations,
L Effective Date: October 20, 1988 1
I
)
1
APPElWIX NGER.0NE o
C00A0! NATION PLAN FOR NRC/INP0 EXCHANGE OF OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE DATA j
l L. M The purpose of this plan is to coordinate selected NRC and INP0 activities related to the collection and feedback of operational experience, information and data related.te the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants.- There are several underlying assumptions, including the following NRC as the government entity has statutory responsibilities' and a.
authorities which are paramount. Nothing in this plan dilutes that responsibility and authority to take act'on in accordance with -
applicable statutes.
b.
Recognising the ability of INP0 to contribute to safe and reliable operation with a resulting benefit to public health and safety, the' following statements apply (1) NRC and INP0 share the cessen objectives that reperting of operational experience information and data be efficient and that duplicative or inconsistent reporting be minimised.
(2) NRC and INP0 agree that the validity of. analysis results may
-depend upon the completeness and quality of input infomation.
(3).NRC and INP0 agree that'the effectiveness-of operational data feedback is dependent upon a proper understanding of the-t significant lessons learned from industry operating experience.
2.
OVEPALL C00RDIMT10N a.
NRC and INP0 will regularly exchange, on a timely basis, the results i
of completed and formally documented generic analysis and event evaluation of operational data.
b.
INPO will provide the NRC with timely listings of the significant events that have been identified by the SEE-IN screening process as significant events for analysis. Similarly the NRC will provide IMPO in a timely manner with the results of its sitinificant event screening procedure that identifies events for any neering evaluation or a case stub and for Information Notices or Bu latins.
c.
Information and data obtained by the NRC from foreign sources,that will be entered do not include restrictions on further distributionlable for INP0 into a computerised data bank and will be made avai analysis activities. Forei(In information and data obtained by IMPO that does not include restr'ctions on further dissemination will
Appendix Number One
- oordination Plan for NRC/INP0 Exchange of Operational Experience Data 8 age Two p
similarly be entered into an INP0 data base and will be made available for NRC analysis activities, q
L d.
INP0 will provide the NRC access to ane use of the Nuclear Plant L
Reliability Data System (NPR05) operated and maintained by INP0.
Additional agreements regarding NPRDS access and usage are contained o
i in a contract between NRC and INP0 that is separate from this-L agreement.
NRC and INP0 intend to have periodic informal technical discussions e.
on generic or event-related studies in progress that are of mutual interest.
f.
Prior to issuing to the industry an Information Notice or other completed and formally documented analysis on a specific event at a nuclear power plant, the NRC agrees to make reasonable efforts to f
review available INP0 SEE-IM products to determine if the Information l
l Notice or other analysis is needed and, if so, that it is technically i
L accurate. Similarly. INP0 agrees to make reasonable efforts to review available NRC Information Notices or other completed. analysis to determine if an INP0 SEE-!N product is needed and, if so, that it 1-is technically accurate. Unless a compelling safety concern dictates otherwise, the party identifying technical inaccuracies, if any, will i
L give the other party reasonable advance notification of the inaccuracies and seek resolution before formally issuing the information to the industry.
Victor
/
T. Pete Executi for Operations President U.S. Nuclear 1 story Commission Institute of Nuclear Power Operatior '
Effective Date:
October 20, 1988 l
4
i t
APPENO!X NWSER TWO COORDINATION PLAN FOR NRC/INP0 APPRAISAL AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
- 1. M The purpose of this plan is to coordinate selected NRC and INP0 utility-appraisal and evaluation activities.
It is also intended to provide a mechanism and a basis for NRC to recognize INP0 efforts in this area..
There are several underlying assumptions, including the following:.
INP0 recognizes NRC's regulatory responsibilities and authority.
l o
NRC recognizes INP0's efforts to promote excellence in nuclear l
o plant operations.
o NRC desires to recognize INP0 evaluation activities to the:
extent that these activities are effective in helping meet NRC's responsibilities as well as lessen the burden imposed on the industry by duplicative appraisal activities.
o NRC requires access to selected INP0 documents and information as well as the opportunity to observe selected INP0 activities in order to be able to give. credit for INP0-activities and to-thereby avoid unnecessary duplication.
t.
INP0 ACYtVITIES This section outlines current ano planned INPC evaluation activities.
a.
INP0 will conduct evaluations'of operating nuclear plants on a periodic basis. The interval between plant evaluations will average about 16 months.
b.
INP0 will conduct evaluations or assistance visits related to' corporate support of nuclear stations. This phase of INP0 activities will usually be conducted coincident with (in close time proximity to) an evaluation of the utility's plants.
c.
INP0 will prepara a written report for each evaluation.
These reports will include appropriate utility responses in each area identified by INP0 as needing improvement.
l
l ' t.-
,4 Lppendix Number Two
- ooreinstion Plan for NRC/INP0 kppraisal and tvaluation Activities Page Two
]
d.
Each succeeding evaluation will include follow-up on the responses developed during the preceding evaluation.
e.-
INP0 will conduct appropriate visits to Near Ters Operating License plants and their corporate organizations to assist in their l
Preparation for operation.
1 l
3.
NRC REVIEW 0F_INP0 ACTIVIT!!S 4.
INP0 expects its member utilities to make operating plant evaluation reports available to the NRC for review or reading. Further, IMP 0 will make final evaluation reports available to the NRC for review or reading by appropriate NRC management personnel. at the INP0 offices in Atlanta.
b.
Current copies of, and any changes to, IMPO evaluation criteria will be provided to NRC.
evaluation respost, have a representative observe an INP0ti.P0 will o NRC may on c.
utility. While specifyinfl a maximum number to be observed is not-l considered necessary by e'ther party, it is anticipated that an NRC representative may observe INPO evaluations several times annually.
L Where NRC Regional personne1' participate as observers, they would not normally accompany an INP0 team on an evaluation in, their own Region.
l.
d.
INP0 will brief personnel of the NRC Division of Reacter Inspection and Safeguards, Office of Nucitar Reactor Regulation (NRR) l periodically on all aspects of INPC's evaluation and assistance-progres.
~
l-e.
NRC review of INP0 evaluation activities will be coordinated by the L
NRC Office of the-Executive Director for Operations. Since IMP 0 has its own system for obtaining member corrective action, NRC's role in pursuing correction of INP0 evaluation findings will primarily-involve only those potentially significant safety problems for which-NRC has no other reasonable alternative in meeting its legislated responsibilities. Any other NRC follow-up. enforcement action would be in accordance with paragraph 4.c. below.
4.
MRC. RECM10N 0F T}llIIHMLEVALRATION PROGRAM a.
Subject to the continued development and success of the INP0 program as outlined above and NRC's ability to effectively review the progres NRC intends to recognize IMPO evaluations and, in those l
[
.a....;T,:..;;;;;., - - -
- :T. -:
- ~ ~
i e
Appendix Number Two Coordination Plan for NRC/INP0 Appraisal and Evaluation Activities Page Three areas deemed appropriate, to sinteise NRC; sponsored evaluations or appraisals that duplicate !NP0 evaluations.
b.
NRC and !NPO will coordinate NRC inspections-(involving two or more inspectors) and INP0 evaluations to minimize the impact on the l
utility involved. Where feasible, NRC and INP0 will coordinate event related or other emergent on-site activities such as NRC augmented diagnostic evaluation teams (DETs) and INkation teams (!!Ts) Ion inspection teams (AITs), incident investi event investigat
- although each party recognises that it may not be possible to coordinate all of these efforts.
c.
The NRC will apply the established Comission enforcement policy for licensee identified non-compliances to those non-compliances-identified by utilities as a result of INP0 evaluations.
i d 'O,
l 71cto to o
~
AggA. Pete Execu i
for Operations (President U.S. Nuclear latory Commission Institute of Nuclear Power Operatient Effective Date: October 20, 1988=
i i
2 Da l-
\\
l l
d j
APPENDIX NWWER THREE COORDINATION Pt.AN
-FOR-NRC/INPO TRAIN!NB.RELATt0 ACTIVITIES
- 1. M The purpose of this plan is to coordinate selected NRC and INP0 activities related to nuclear power industry training.
It is also intended to provide a mechanism and a basis for.information sharing and NRC recognition of !NPO efforts in this area.
There are several underlying assumptions INP0 recognizes NRC's regulatory responsibility and authority.
o i
quality of nuclear utilgoal of improving and maintaining NRC and INPO share the o
ty training.
_ NRC recognises the industry's initiative and couaiteent to:INPO o
programs that promote high quality training through development of integrated training and qualification systems, including R
accreditation of key training programs.
MRC recognises INP0 accreditation and associated training-o evaluation activities (see also Appendix 2. " Coordination Plan for NRC/!NPO Appraisal and Evaluation Activities") as an -
l acceptable seens'of self-improvement in training. Such-I l.
recognition encourages industry initiative and reduces duplicate-program review and appraisal activities.
o.
INP0 recognises=that the NAC requires access to selected INP0 l
documents and information. as well as the opportunity to observe selected INP0 activities related to training and accreditation, in order to ensure that the NRC meets its obligations to the p'Jblic and the Congress.
o Coordination of NRC and INP0 training-related activities and sharing of information will increase overall effectiveness as well as lessen the burden imposed on the industry by duplication of activities.
e 1
l
J>
Appendix Number Three Coordination Plan for NRC/INP0 Training-Related Activities Page Two'
.Z. 04RELC00R0_t!IAT!0H In order to presste overall coordinesion of NRC and INPO training-related:
activities, the following actions will be takens MRC/INPO Coordination meetints will be held periodically with a.
representatives from NRC't O' vision of Licensee Performance and-k Quality Evaluation (NRR) and-INPO's Training and Education Groum.- At these meetings. information on ongoing projects and plans will M
/ '!
exchanged._ Written reports of progress and results may be exchanged.
b.
INP0 will provide the NRC with access to selected INP0 documente and information, and will provide updated copies of the IMPO training guidelines and Training System Development Manual.
INPO will also provide the NRC, on a case-by-case basis, with access to the. Job and task analysis data stored in the INP0 computer data base.
Coordination regarding accreditation of training programs is covered c.
by Attachment 1.
ff b [h
. Pate prt: tor s l
Executive or Operations President U.S. Nuclear R latory Commission Institute of Nuclear Power Operation-Effective Date: October 20,1988 I
6
-_.-.-m_
._.____m__,_
.~.
bRC/INPO Coordination Plan
' Appendix Three-Fage One ACCRDITATION OF TRAINING PROGRNE e
!.. M The purpose of this plan is to provide for coordination of selected NRC 5
and IMP 0 activities reisted to the accreditation of performance-based traininfr proitrams. This plan also provides for continued incustry initiat've w'th NRC monitoring in this area and serves as a basis for NRC?
recognition of INP0's efforts. This coordination plan is consistent with' the Comeission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear-Power Plant Personnel.
In carrying out this plan INP0 recognizes NRC's responsibility and authority, f
i!. 1HED ACTIY1 Tits This section outlines current and planned INP0 activities related to the accreditation oi' performance-based programs for the training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel. The INP0 point of L
coordination for the implementation of this plan is the Group Vice.
L President, Training and Education.
a.
INP0 will continue to manage the accreditation of utility training programs including o
self-evaluations by mes* utilities, with' assistance from the -
INP0 staffI o
on-site reviews of training and qualification programs by teams of INPO and utility personnell o
preparation of a report for each accreditation team visitt o
follow-up on recommendations developed during the accreditation processI o
awardinff, deferring or placing on probation of accreditation by the Nat'onal Nuclear Accrediting Boards and o
reviewing accreditation of utility training programs approximately every four years (accreditat' on w'11 be. renewed..
continuedinaprobationarystatus,orwithdrawa).
b.
INP0 will continue to conduct periodic performance-orienthd evaluations of training and qualification programs as part of its operating plant evaluations and as follow-up to accreditation.
l I
q
_m
+.
^:.:,;. :. :. :. ".. ^
^ ~ ^ - - ' '
' - - - ~ ' ~ - ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - ' ~ - -
NRC/INP0 Coordination Plan Appendix Three-Page Two c.
INP0 wi.11 provide updated copies of the accreditation procedures and criteria document as it is revised. This document will be made publicly available.
d.
INP0 will review and consider NRC recommendations regarding INP0-managed traitiing-related programs, documents, and criteria, e.
!NPO will provide periodic detailed briefings on accreditation to l
sporopriate NRC management personnel including review of the activities described in 2.a above and documentation of industrywide accreditation status.
f.
INP0 intends to brief the Comeission periodically on program status.
j 3.
MRMIIIIIlta This faction outlines the NRC's continuing efforts to monitor IMPO activities-as part of NRC's assessment of the effectiveness of industry's coordination for implementation of this plan is the Director, 01 vision of training and eualification program improvements: The NRC point of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, NRR.
.a.
NRC will not issue documents that duplicate.INP0 training documents L
and will not refer to !NPO documents as a means of satisfying NRC i
requirements so as to avoid " codifying" or the appearance of
" codifying' !Np0 documents.
b.
NRC will assess the effectiveness of industry's training and qualification program improvements as follows:
o' conduct operator licensing examst o
conduct operator requalification exams consistent with Commission policy and 10 CFR Part 55 o
conduct reviews of a semple of utility training programs to ensure use of performance-based training princ'plass monitor plant and industry trends and events. involving personnel o
errorst o
continue evaluation of industrywide training and qualification program effectiveness; and o
conduct performance-oriented training inspections to assess-the level of knowledge and qualifications of plant personnel.
l i
4
- - - - - ~,
NRC/INP0 Coordination Plan L"
appendix Three f
Page Three.
l L
c.
NRC will monitor INP0 activities in training and accreditation as-k follows:
L I
o' receive periodic briefings and/or reports from INP0 and review a sample of applicable INP0 documentst l
l l
'o nominate individuals who are not on the NRC staff to serve as members of the National Nuclear Accrediting teard with full voting privilegest o
have an NRC staff member attend and observe selected National Nuclear Accrediting Board meetings with the INP0 staff and/or the utility representativest o
on request and with concurrence of the utility, have NRC employees observe INPQ accreditation team site visits for-the purpose of monitoring the effectiveness of the accreditation process. Since accreditation teams are relatively small in-sise, it is anticipated the NRC would typically send only one observer on any visit. However, in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to send more than one.1INP0 will obtain the
. hile specifying a W
necessary concurrence from the host utility.
maximum number to be observed-is not considered necessary by either party, it is anticipated that-NRC employees would observe approximately 20 percent of INP0 accreditation team visitst and
'o accompany INP0 on selected operating. plant evaluations (see Appendix 2).
d.
NRC will continue to provide INP0 copies of NRC's performance-oriented inspection program. including applicable inspection-guidelines.
s.
NRC will coordinate any team inspections with INP0 accreditation team visits and evaluations so as to minimise the impact on-the utility employee may occasionally observe an NRC inspection in th involved. On request and with concurrence of the utility a area.
f.
Since INP0 has its own system for obtaining member corrective action.
NRC's role in pursuing corrective action of INP0-identified training and qualification recommendations will involve only significant safety problems for which NRC has no other reasonable alternativa in meeting its legislated responsibilities. The NRC intends to exe"cise.
discretion in enforcement matters related to training as described in the Commission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification ed
/
Nuc1, ear Power Plant Personnel.
APPEle1X NWWER FOUR COORBINATION PLAN FOR l
INF0/IIBU5TRY PARTICIPATION IN NRC INCIDEN INVESTIGATION TEAMB 1.
The purpose of this plan is to establish guidance for INP0 or otherc industry representatives involvement with NRC Incident Investigation Teams
(!!Ts).
It is also intended to minimize duplication of event-investigation efforts to reduce the impact on the affected utility and-to' promote dissemination of accurate operating experience information to the industry.
2.
NRC and INP0 recognise the importance of NRC's incident investigation -
activities in identifying significant operational experience information. Participat'on by industry representatives on-an IIT should result in a more coglete and thorough understanding of the factors -
contributing to the incident and actions needed to prevent recurrence.
In; j
carrying out this plan, INP0 recognises NRC's responsibility and-authority.
j l
L In view of these considerations, INP0 and NRC agree on the following:
3.
l 1
o L
a.
INP0 or other industry representatives' participation on an !!T will be coordinated between the Director of the Office for Anslysis and.
for the NRC and the Vice-Evaluation of Operational Data (At00)JNPO.
l President for Government Relations, A request for-participation by an industry representative can be initiated by either party to this agreement.-
b.
NRC will provide INPO with a reasonable number of copies of the-current Incident Investigation Manual and any other procedures which-apply to the operation of an IIT.
c.
NRC will notify INPO promptly when an !!T is being activated.and provide all necessary information to enable IMP 0 to facilitate industry participation.
d.
INP0 will serve as the central point of contact for coordinatien of all issues and procedures regarding industry participation on fits.
e.
INP0 will recommend industry participants to the NRC.
e L
_ _.. _ _. _.. _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ ~.. _ _ _
'h T
j Appendix Number Four Coordination Plan for
- ncident Investigation Activities Page Two f.
INPO will request each industry nominee to sign a statement regarding" proprietary information, conflicts of interest, and waiver of compensation.- In addition, each industry nominee will be requested-to comply with the procedures established for the operation of !!Ts.
which include procedures for handling differences ih professional opinion and the release of investigation information. This signed statement will be provided to the NRC as part of the noeination +
process.
g.
INP0 will provide assistance in coordinating with the affected utility to obtain site access for the industry representative (s).
L h.
INP0 will work with the affected utility and the IIT-so that the Significant Event Report (SER), if any, being prepared by INPO en the event under investigation by an IIT is factually correct. To this L
and, INP0 will request that the affected utility coordinate a review i
of the draft SER with the IIT and provide cessents to INPO.=
1 k.
fr
~
1 eter sta;P "k N
'g arg r
. Pete Executive L for Operations idont IJ.S. Nuclear Re atory Commission Institute of Nuclear Power Operations-i!ffective Date: October 20,1988 l
L L
1 l
1
554' 731 FEDERAL SUPPf2 MENT EM : Continued
~
have discussed this anamar fully and believe CRITICAL MASS EN*
that the da-an that I am now making is PROJECT, Platattff,]
in my best interests The reason for this decision is that I am satisfied that none of
- f. 79
- m,p,y.,,
NUCIRAR REGULATOBb the information that Mr." Rochon has about COMutaaION, Defendanto i
my case has been or will be revealed to Mr.
l Kohlman or used in the' defense of anyone Iristitute of Noelear Power Operatises, t
else.
Defanadant-Intervenor.,,
m.,.
. /s/ Harry S. Jr.
Cira A. Not 84 am.si u..
I H.S.; Jr.; Respondent in 89-410M-01 United States District Court,..
Date: February 26,.1990 District of Columbia.,
me
/s/Katherme M.- WaAngton -
March 2,1990.
a
\\
Youth Treatment Coordmator-Oak Hi!! Yossa Center-Y go,p,,gje -
e,,,,,,,_
o ORDER brought suit under the-Freedom-of.Infor.
Y q'
In accordance with the. Court's Opinion nation Act (FOIA) seekmg copy of verness t
of even date herewith,it is, this lst day of reports prepared by utahty industry consao
' i March,1990, tium and voluntardy transanteed to thenMo-t ORDERED that Constance Perry's Mo.
'IN""W W &
mnsh a find l
h tion for Reconsideration of the Court's Feb-E safety ted "ents emperwnees st, T
members' nuclear power plants. The_U,hs.t. ic h;,:,,
ruary 26,1990 oral Order disquahfring her nit.
defense conneel Mark Rochon and hW
}Q.
peon's inotam to idW Gary ed States District Court for the. Distract.of kl Irnan s e,-and hereby am DL Colurabia,644 F.Supp. 844, granted.NRCs k {i p-f motion for sn=may judgment holdingue-ports exempt from disclosure,.and.plamtiff Dl FURTHER ORDERED that Mark Ro-appealed. Tha. Court of Appeals;.8807.2d b
chon's appearance on behalf of Constance 178, r-andari for. additional doemnanta.
N j
,b Perry shall be, and hereby is, stricken; and tion. On remand theDistrict CourtM
' mot f
it is son, J., held that reports were exempt from FURTHER ORDEREn. that, Mark Ro-disclosure under the " trade seersQ or.
[J o._
}
4; chon shall not disenas with Constance Per. "mmmeremi infornation"- exemption.to the f#
ry's lead defense counsel Gary Kohlman FOIA.
s.,,m, a hg.
any information that Mark Rochon ob-Motion gmnted, eles tamed directly or indirectly irom ti.S, Jr.
prot while representing him at the Public De-the y[U fender Service; and it is.
Reemis *=69
'M" sult.
FURTHER ORDERED. that Mrc Kohl-.
Repons volunMy,pmvided njr 9
{
man shall continuer to represent Ms. Perry me of mnEdentiauty to Nuclear Re@y gt
,ry without interruption.
Commission (NRC), regardmg resuhs of
{
- e.
~*y-.'-
Provider orgamzation's investigation m, tg 19 l r
safety related events or experiences,at its
~
- 2. > j member utilities' nuclear power'plAnfa,'
T19 (
were exempt from disclosure under the C
i, dl
- -""" 9
" trade secret" or " commercial information"
/-
exemption to the Freedom of Information'
- N-j
~
'j' of reports would be likely to impair.NRO't a.,..
Act (FOIA), given evidence that' disclosure 32
.g.
J j
ability to obtain such candid and detailed P8 d
.1 1
m---_____________
l CRITICAL MASS ENEBieLPROJECT v. NRc 5E cuemeist ransp. see esc isser-in future.
5 U.S.C.A.
safety. elated events or exponences occur-ring at it. members' nuclear power plants.
S ENERGY
)(4)..
INPO also 1enishes copes of its reports to
'trin.;f, the NRC, upon the express condition. haw-e
[' Glitzenstein. David V. uleck, Alan B.
ever; that NRC not make them public with-i I
, Public Citizen Litt cation Group, out.INPO's consent, and INPO does not I
I
' N'ATORY t.sf:ndant, gton, D.C., for plainttU consent to plaintiff *r request here. NRC t
?
has, thus, invoked FOIA's Exemption 4, 5 thenne Lanctot, Susan E Ruh, Eliza.
U.S.C. Il 552(b)(4), to justify its refusal 'o awcr Operations,
% Pugh, Dept. of Justie, Civ2 Div.,
comply with that request.:
l
{
ervent r.
gton, D.C. (Carolyn F. Evans, Of.
l-1943 of GensCounsel, of counsel), for defe*
The court of.appsala found the INPO
(
reports to' possess all the charactenstics of
- t Cc art,
- lumbia, du docutaenta entitled to Exempuon 4 status
' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER save one, and remanded for this Court's
' actual determmauon as to whether their 990.
- h JACKSON, District Judge.
he to FOLA et Md q
governmental interest FOIA case is once more oefore the coapromise - a er organizauon on cross mouons for sur4 mary judg-sought to be served by the Exemption 4,
'reedom of Infor.
.-, tsfollowmg remand from the court of either by impairing NRC's ability te obtait.
e copy of vanous 8 The plaintiff, a consumer orga-the reporta in the future (specifically, infor<
mdustry consor.
tion. is. requesting copies cf certain
- mation of the same quality they presently aitted to the Nu.
presently furnished voluntarily to de-mpart), or by diminishing NRC's own reg-aston (NRC) re-t Nuclear Regulatory Commmasion ulatory efficiency or effectiveness. Crib
.vestigsuon mto j,.C") by a former stranger to this liti-ical Afass E'nergy Project, 830 F.2d at 287 xperiences at its n, the Institute of Nuclear Power Op-i
'lants. The Unit.
'tions. ("INPO"). INPO has, since re-or the Distnet of
, intervened as a codefendant. Al-II. -
- 1. granted NRC's Ogh this case bids fair to rival the saga The determmation mandated by the court
- ment holding re.
sure, and plaintiff
,, dahington Post Co. t'. U.S. Depart-of appeals requires Manc(ing] the individ-of Neoith and Humate Services,* the ual-litigant's (i.e., the regator's] need for
\\ppesh,830 F.2d will once sgsin grant defendants' information against the goveciment's need ional documenta.
~ ' n and dismiss the complair.t.
taobtain the information in tt.e future,"
tnet Court, Jack.
cere exempt from Washington Post Co.,690 F.2d at 258, and M
"tha extent to which the government's abil-e6 7,
rade secret" or would be 30 is a private non-profit consortiu'm ity to obtain.,(the}. informanan exemption to the
' electric utility companies operating nu.
impatred.. against the public interest in disclosure." Id..at 269 (emphasis in origi-c power planta in the United States. It It also necessitates a pr<ction of nal).?
produces, and circulates to its membership,, sorts as to the. nature of t% INPO/NRC (Nrreports at issue which present the re-rovided on prom-
_ Aulta of its own inquiries into significant relationship without, the protection. of.a INPUs souras and tr.hmques. they would like-C"'ksMass Energy Aviset v. Nuciasr Regade iclear Regulatory rytomm'n. 644 F.Supp. 344 (D.D4.1986), sw-ly Be immunei frr.n disenosure under FOIA's avestigation. into
,.desaed and remanded. 830 F.2d 278. (D.C41r.
Esempuon-5. SeeSnised Stadas v. We6er Air-rdN Msults of crs/t Corp., 465 U.S. 792. IM S4t. 1488, 79
,1987).
L.Ed.2d 814 (1984h Sedewer v. U.S. Daph of tier Xpertences at its i.C15. No. 80-1681. Mem. Op. (D.D.C; Dec. 4.
Air Form. 829 F.2d 182 (D.C.Cir.1987).
power planta, 1980), rewrsed and ic'M 690 F.2d 252 r
~
C41r.1982); on remend. 603 F.Supp. 235
- 4. ' M Court a-- that the W to te isure under the 4.1985). rewrsed and ~._ ' i 795 F.2d undertaken in Exemption 4 cases is an excep-
.ctal inf """NO""
(D.C.Ctr.1986), on romand, Mem.Op<(D.D.C.
tion to, or at least a qualification of, the no bal-n of Information ov. 20.1987). rewrwd and romansind, 865 F.2d
. ancing. rule generally.obserwd in other FOIA 8** 8 'esw v. David, 448 F.2d 1067,
'e that disclosure
- '320 (Dr.Cir.1989).
".'77 -(DI.Cir.1971).
- 8 -
to impat'r NRC's a"uromcally, had the same repons been.'pr*-
107&
~
idid and detailed pared directly by NRCs own inveaugators, usmg
~
t-55g 7gamasaAL SUPPrmmy-FOIA exeEption. fo-INPO reports in the industry itself, the most t iui.ful NRC's poemessson.
thinkmg of the best informed peopl6'vithin Yet despeta the b.alk of.the.sesord before the industry on matters-of safety, a com-the-Courtoit ia,lagely unrepenhns,ss. o modity, otherwme. unavailable to..it enespt how the defendr.ats would. reset to a deci. through the good offices of an/unoffidial, sion,,. i l g.the.INPO reports duelona. industry friendl[;,organisataod.. gas ble under-FCfA, other thsa,.INPO's un.
INPO.
F5Irits idrthla atiff suggelidssh, -
equivocal condrmataan.of the feet.that one l
certain consequeneaarilLba.the eessation of lanned need of I.s own for the 'reposta.it its.practace of sharmg them with NRC vol-is thus ausmtte/. to the general,publie.interi
~
untarily.' ~ Thjinceforth NRC'eround have to est in discle ure for duelosure's saka to 5
resort to compulalon to' set 'the reports, support it, request. To be sure, the pudie and, INPO declares, it would resist vigor-has at interest of significantly greater me-ously (and it represents that it is informed ment than idle curiosity in information its individual,", members willTeisist as well). bearmg upon the safety of nuclearipower
~
NBC.and INPO-are neverthelesa. fully in plants.u But, eo doeS NRC, and.so do 4NPO 9'
accord in one respect:.the.hauted confiden-anduits: mamhara, and :.of a.anuch..mose tiality the.JNPO reports presently enjoy, immarhata.andidirect nature; in addiairstao
.L i.e.,.th,eirgeneral.unavailabihty to the pub-thehn.shass<of.the general pubbe internet.
lic.41arge,is indispananhla to the quality Plaintiff also offers no affirmativersri-of the.infonnation they contain. A host of declarantanidaffiants.fros both NRC and dece of lh own to conW defendants,
=
INPO (all of whom.are highly' quahfied declarants and afHants as to~&eW
- ~ professionals possessmg both tance..".of the information to the NRC;'Es'to nuclear
. years of relevant experience and the re-se extent to 6 Ns'aWSM-
.s sponsibility of currently relevant office) ar-it,might behhnpaned were the INPO1re-deutly,attestito hWf..that cir-ports to be ma~de public, or as to.wlis$er cumstanceas assuring mammum candor on thaNRC would be otherwmeli=W in the apart 'ofnINPO's. souress for the: sub, effleiency orleffectiveness therebr.; Plain.
stance of.ita, reports.'
tiff's, cosa consists entirely of geommon a,u.
,a sense inferences,it aska the Coust to. draw g
u ee postion tab imm seeming concessions made'by' NRC to en-by NRC'in this; dispute >as.being more thanw-plip'serwee to its commat-M of lu discow h..&
gist of those inferences is that the asser-ment to INPO not to divulge-the* reports. tions of he NRC and INPOdeclairants'and o
From the NRC' declarations-alone it is ap.
- 5*bg!
=
t pesent that-NRO'is eonemend thatit will "NI"
- experience e genome loosif valuable regu-. "
- I"k*" ** I"** ""l"*'
n 2
=m latory intelhgence, one>way<or another,*if Fora examples. plaintift argues,"oINPO the4NPO %,.
uus procearisimade sub. membersvaretaiready reqmredetotsubmit s
jeg to.rnnsral.g[uhlie acruting...NRC,be. ro'uOsely$isde 'ava5able"E. thiO
" licensee event reports" to NRC which are
~
t lieves thshi$s ndy,dleIr~ivingutr'om"the INPO toporter and contensporaneouslynrith though often containing revelatiana ofshu-a
.m u.m
.J 9
m,.
n ut..
5.11NPO diarlaime-for the present. any. intention sonnel. Aaving. knowledge of such events and to stop propertne the. reports altogashers exponences to engage in subjective'felf!sidtical
- 6. NRC and INPO contend that the true value of thsh of L
the ini rat [
=i
'erin the insighrthey affohl as to " root causes-theavywungpomse itself to WM P he t
. 'of, the evems and'expertemme'wtdch are fre.
and ultimately to the public., Sesre.g.osheYaffi-
'quently found to involve-human error.n The davits.of TJ. Sullivan L NPO) of August 26, INPO personnel who-compile tiseereimets,en.
1909%ndidwardt kedaa4NR@ef.8mh deavor to set members' officials and plant per.
28:'1988.F " " ^ ' ' N S8W" %
e j
h-1 CRITICAL #ARAENERG'll PROJECT v. NRC 557 3
CheseTal FAspp. see m.D.C.199st y
et insightful jrror, yet are conceded by defendants information now freely shared by INPO i
d propie within iruthful as far as they go.2 More-with NRC would be withheld until it was h"
nitty, a com-Mtiff suggests, candor on the part demanded under some form of compulsion.
e to it except 1~
interviewed by INPO is more The demand would have to be enforced, f
o be inhibited by fear of summary which would likely precipitate both nerimo-y i
an unofficial,
. l
] "Ior reprisal by an employer (or ny and some form of litigation with attand-on such as
?j
. than.by apprehension of. eventual ant expense and deisy.
4 '. exposure i r confessions of job relat-NRC and INPO would then no longer be ig)jnpatakes. Yet nothing about the cur-collaborators in a quest for optimum indus-J sts no particu-ie reports. It reportmg process protects an.INPO try safety, putting aside their other regula-6 11 public inter-e anonymity fr m any of the multi-tory differences.. If not outright antago-ure's sake to
' intra-industry recipients of the reports, nists, they would at best be wary allies, p
q h(
J ire, tha pubi c oding the-source's own employer.: pi-working independently of one anothe r, du-
?
y greater mo.
e plaintiff. observes, NRC wields the plicating one another's efforts, an mis-e information hip, hand: not only does it have subpoena trustful of one another's initiatives o over-acirar power inear plenary ngulatory powen should tums... That.determraten,of the ri lation-t i so do INPO ship, in thia Court's opman, reprea ents a i
[, '.'ipchoose to use them to get the.INPO much more 08 Ports; NRC can also effectively hold the suffw=nt showmg that NRC's affaiency.
p
.n addition to h of INPO members hostage.antilit and effectiveness would be impaired were p:
ablic interest.
'gets what it wanta, in terms of candor, it not permitted to honor its commitment to E
' "** 'Vi'
' frUm anyone in the industry.
INPO to keep the INPO reporta in confi-dance, and ttis; thenfore, this 2nd day of I-t Af:ndants' (ta)e u.: -
mem m.> -
- u. F r '.
March,1990, E
o ths impor-e NRC, as to d b.
.-)IL.
3 NM h Mh'
- h 5
)
ility to obtam inThe. Court finds the effect of the defen-summary judgment is again granted; and r
he INPO re-rdents': multiple declarations and affidavits, ;g g, a to v,hether itsirther.aggregato..to exceed. ths suun of MM OMRR 'that the com-p diminished in thair: parts, and to carry defendants' bur-plaint is,.Once more,. disnussed with preiu-
- reby. Plain-dentof establishing entitlement to the ex.
diC*'
of common Geqition they elaint for the INPO reports 1-E ourt to draw 8Hken together they evince a symbiosis in
.atives. The which the Court foresees as being damatred I-l
.Ihe4 relationship between NRC andalNPO
- e by NRC to t
i
~
at the asser-4 were the INPO reports in NRC's p,. eses-o "gm.m mmg D % ion to be subject to FOIA disclosure.
~
'clarants and f Whether or-not the reporting process
~
y
!. or at least r would truly experience a loss of. candor-s
{
hgfl, issue neither more declarations nor a caes, INPO
. arade (witnesses could definitively re-p d to submit t
solve in advance of the event-both NRC (C which are
'INPO' share the conviction. t'.ldt' 'it te public, al-ations of hu-t{ould.
consequence woiifd be that the g
i 1
'7..:The relanonship between the ?1
< event Breaks v. Docsors Hospust Inc., 50 F.R.D. 249 (h [gg" reports" and the INPO reports at issus for.de-(D.DA1970), a//'d 479 F.2d 920 (D.C.Cir.1973).
[
- 8. Among other repneentations made by NRC or k
ls S
c (*
[p ustraded c thout them.
a INPO for the first time at oral argument, which aublic, candor declaret6on of Jack E. Rosenthal(NRC) of Feb-hadmh found duat exm an their sh the value of I" 1990N sn camere' M written submissions earlier, is one to the effect
' ' "I NFO. to NRC-under seaLat thoCoun's request.. Imcennan that INFO reports never beset discipline-for n
- s. e.g., the affi.
respects that relationship resembles that of hos.
sourtes from either an employer or NRC. It is
=
TC) of OctM pital records of patient care to peer m6ew com-now do 4 by the TJ. Sullivan affidavit of
.d of August 26 m6:see.proomedings of parucular. casse. See Febmary 2o,1990.
?
y a ::
-e f
~
.I catht:te UdNkC VYN 14s
% JN 18 P4 :32 AstAs. urn, RKGMAIL.VY 0FFICE OF SECftEIARY 00CM[ilNG 4 SLHVICl.
CertifNe $f Service I, R. K. Gad in, hereby certify that on June 90, I made service of the within response to document production request and separate objection 4
and request for protective order, by mailing copies thereof, first class mail, postage prepaid, as follows:
Robert M. Lazo, Esquire Jerry Harbour Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
'U.S.N.R.C.
U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Adjudicatory File Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board '
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.N.R.C.
U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Anthony-Z. Roisman, Esquire Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire Cohen, Milstein & Hausfeld Patricia A. Jehle Esquire Suite 600 -
U.S.N.R.C.
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20005 l
Kurt Janson, Esquire Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 l
.l m
R. K. Gad 111
/
-